The Reagan Issue

I am desperately trying to stay out of the back-and-forth between the top three Democratic candidates for President. Let’s face it, if I had to campaign for 17 thousand years and do a billion debates and interviews, I’m sure I could be very easily discredited for something I said – or even something I didn’t say!

But you know, it is meaningful that Obama brought up Reagan in any kind of admiring way. I have repeatedly noted how much Obama is reaching out to Republicans and self-declared Independents, and attacking Clinton and Edwards from the right, not the left. It’s his campaign strategy, and who knows, it may work. My nervousness comes from what he would do after being elected President, and how he will deal with the Fascists in the House and Senate that are sure to make his life completely miserable. Since I don’t have a long record of votes and public service to refer to, I have to take him at his word that he will govern to the right of the other two candidates. Needless to say, I’m not comfortable with that.

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable is what Paul Krugman talks about this morning. Progressive Democrats have to say, “Reagonomics (deregulation of corporations and union-busting) does not work. It leads to recession and poverty. We need to go back to the economics of the New Deal to revitalize American society.”

John Edwards, of course, is essentially saying that when he calls poverty “the great moral issue of our time” and proposes to end it by 2036. And yet, he has consistently been treated as Mr. Cellophane by the traditional media.

Or perhaps, there is no “and yet.” In an Edwards administration, the corporate owners of the traditional media outlets would suddenly have to deal with diversification and regulation. And those hogs don’t want to share their feed with the little people, do they?

Advertisements

Comments are closed.